Name-calling is now against Saidit Rules

submitted by thoughtcriminal from (self.whatever)

[removed]
all 26 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]magnora7[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (1 child)

The rules are not changing. I've removed this post. Do not spread false information.

The wiki will be edited back. The rules we've always had are here, and still untouched, and still available from the 'terms & content policy' button in the footer of every page. https://saidit.net/s/SaidIt/comments/j1/the_saiditnet_terms_and_content_policy/

https://saidit.net/s/SaidIt/comments/8vws/rules/wvt4

One content admin went a little rogue and decided to change the rules himself, and I don't approve so we're having discussions about it.

What it looks like will happen is we will have a "rules clarification" page soon, which explains the rules but does not change them. The rules are not going to be changed.

[–]mongre 9 insightful - 5 fun9 insightful - 4 fun10 insightful - 5 fun -  (9 children)

Anyone who wants to implement this is a commie faggot who doesn't have a clue what freedom means.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

God damn commie faggot pieces of shit cunt miserable ass licking gay boy cunts.

[–]mongre 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly

[–]JasonCarswellMental Orgy 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

It has already been in place for close to 4 years. But now it's clarified.

You are free to leave, free to set up your own forum, free to join /s/FreedIt.

[–]thoughtcriminal[S] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

It wasn't against the rules to converse in the lower tiers as long as the conversation was already happening there. If it was in place, it wasn't being enforced. And if it is being enforced, saidit's rule are stricter even than r*ddit in this regard.

I probably will leave if it stays in place, but I'd rather have a conversation about it first.

[–]JasonCarswellMental Orgy 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

It wasn't against the rules to converse in the lower tiers as long as the conversation was already happening there.

This is misleading. Repeating it doesn't make it true.

It was definitely in place. They made exceptions for subs off /s/All (/s/OpieAndAnthony, Ice Poseidon 2, /s/Incels, etc.). And they didn't enforce it in general subs like they could have. Things won't change (as you're insisting for unnecessary drama), but it will be easier for admins.

And if it is being enforced, saidit's rule are stricter even than r*ddit in this regard.

IMO, one simple rule of four with minor issues is worth it, to maintain SaidIt civility, free-thinking, and truth-seeking.

I probably will leave if it stays in place, but I'd rather have a conversation about it first.

It's always been there. Let's have a conversation about your momma raising whiners. ;P

[–]thoughtcriminal[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Things won't change (as you're insisting for unnecessary drama), but it will be easier for admins.

So things won't change but things will change for the admins (since it will be easier). Which is it, both statements can't be true.

(as you're insisting for unnecessary drama)

ad hominem, don't assume my motivations or make baseless attacks on me. We're talking about saidit and its rules.

It's always been there.

This is misleading. Repeating it doesn't make it true. You stated yourself that the rule was unwritten and unenforced. So effectively and practically and for all intents and purposes, it didn't exist.

Let's have a conversation about your momma raising whiners

Mentioning my mother which is irrelevant to this discussion seems like it would constitute dragging down on the pyramid.

[–]JasonCarswellMental Orgy 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

So things won't change but things will change for the admins (since it will be easier). Which is it, both statements can't be true.

Let me know when you notice a difference.

ad hominem, don't assume my motivations or make baseless attacks on me. We're talking about saidit and its rules.

They've been explained, many times, here, on the other post, and in chat. Repeatedly. Redundantly. Over and over. Again and again.

The horse is dead. It's in many pieces. Now you're just beating it into horse paste (not the good kind).

This is misleading. Repeating it doesn't make it true. You stated yourself that the rule was unwritten and unenforced. So effectively and practically and for all intents and purposes, it didn't exist.

I have 2 strikes, for name-calling, 1 objectively, 1 allegedly. You can't explain these without understanding that it is, and always has been a thing here.

Look at these discussions and links within, including coverage of this topic:

/s/AskSaidIt/comments/8tvc/shalomeveryone_is_a_full_of_shit_enemy_of/

/s/AskSaidIt/comments/8euo/saidit_survey_ban_usocks_and_uactuallynot_or_keep/

Mentioning my mother which is irrelevant to this discussion seems like it would constitute dragging down on the pyramid.

Maybe. Or maybe I'm just trying to make light of your repetitive tediousness which is dragging things downward. You see how problematic subjective content is - now imagine having to be admin over all this shit. They don't want to have to make the subjective calls that determine the fates of users. Clear objective rules are easier to regulate. You also see how this applies with wishy-washy bullshit lockdown mandates, etc.

My advice: quit bitching until there's something to bitch about. They've heard you. See how it goes. If it's worse, then raise hell.

[–]goobandit 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

🐐

[–]thoughtcriminal[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The horse is dead. It's in many pieces. Now you're just beating it into horse paste (not the good kind).

You're free to not continue participating in this discussion if you think there's nothing more to say. Your continued participation comes with the implication that you wish to continue it.

I have 2 strikes, for name-calling, 1 objectively, 1 allegedly. You can't explain these without understanding that it is, and always has been a thing here.

Sure I can, because name calling has always been against the rules IF it was dragging the discussion down the POD. So you getting strikes for name calling isn't at odds with what I'm saying necessarily.

Look at these discussions and links within, including coverage of this topic:

I only glanced through these threads but they are just examples of targeted harassment from you against specific users and calls for more censorship? What am I supposed to be seeing here?

Maybe. Or maybe I'm just trying to make light of your repetitive tediousness which is dragging things downward. You see how problematic subjective content is - now imagine having to be admin over all this shit. Maybe. Or maybe I'm just trying to make light of your repetitive tediousness which is dragging things downward. You see how problematic subjective content is - now imagine having to be admin over all this shit.

Tediousness and repetition aren't on the POD. Repetition is a powerful argumentative tool. And no, I'm pretty sure bringing my mother into the convo with a strong implication that I am a whiner (name calling) is pretty objectively dragging down the POD. But if subjectivity is the concern then this rule does little to change that since the entire sphere of free speech outside of explicit direct name calling is still subjectively moderated.

Clear objective rules are easier to regulate.

Sure, but a clear objective rule can still be enforced subjectively. I think your argument is going in circles a bit here. You claim it's largely unenforced, then give examples of it being enforced - so even if the rule is objective, it's clearly being enforced subjectively. You also stated nothing will change. If that's the case it will continue to be enforced subjectively. And if it's not the case, something will have to change.

You also see how this applies with wishy-washy bullshit lockdown mandates, etc.

No I don't really see how a name calling rule or subjective moderation on saidit applies to covid lockdowns and mandates.

My advice: quit bitching until there's something to bitch about.

Invariably, waiting until censorship is already occurring to bitch about it is too late.

[–]JasonCarswellMental Orgy 7 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 5 fun -  (6 children)

This post is full of errors, misinterpretations, and some valid concerns.

Seems like M7 wasn't really in favor of the change.

Read deeper and you'll see M7 is of two minds.

https://saidit.net/s/SaidIt/comments/8vws/rules/

This rule was added in the last 24 hours, you can see it along with the revision history here: https://saidit.net/wiki/index

This rule has been in existence for almost 4 years, largely unenforced. The clarifications were added for the admins to more easily deal with fringe problems without being dragged into a subjective quagmire.

Rules

Q: What is allowed and what is not permitted?

A: SaidIt.net is for open civilized discourse with very few rules:

  1. By the Terms And Content Policy, "If a person is caught repeatedly dragging discussion in a downward direction on the Pyramid of Debate, they will be removed."
    1. No advocating violence.
    2. No name-calling without adequate efforts to debate.
      • Present logical arguments rather than only insulting users.
      • Name-calling is unnecessary and always weakens your case.
      • Admins will avoid biases and not subjectively judge presented arguments as good or not, nor weigh insult severity against argument logic.
  2. No pornography. It's too much trouble to monitor and there's no shortage elsewhere.
  3. No vending of illegal weapons, illegal drugs, and stolen goods, nor discussion about, nor links leading to sales of illegal things according to US law.
  4. No astroturfing or artificial amplification of your free speech voice. For example, do not upvote yourself or others using alternate usernames or sock-puppet accounts.

instead of the admins making a unilateral decision on their own.

This is quoting the bullshit that M7 pinned.

Previously the POD was the standard.

It still is.

If you want to have a shitposting sub where you all insult each other, that's completely fine.

We've already had Opie & Anthony, Ice Poseidon 2, etc. They were not allowed on /s/All and they had rules in their sideboxes.

calling someone like Trudeau a tyrant or a retard, calling Biden braindead, etc.

"Present logical arguments rather than only insulting users."
This clarification is so that users don't just insult other users.

So far as I know "leaders" and public figures are fair game.

Even r*ddit allows name calling. What do you guys think of this rule? I think at the very least it needs clarification, but honestly I'm strongly against this change. I have no problem with name calling in the correct context.

IMO, you're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

It incorrectly assumes all conversation is debate.

I completely agree and also see this as an issue.

Edit: Hasty typos.

[–]TiwakingMy Pronouns are Nigger and Boss Nigger 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

"Present logical arguments rather than only insulting users." This clarification is so that users don't just insult other users.

So far as I know "leaders" and public figures are fair game.

Justin Trudeau is back on the menu boys!!

[–]JasonCarswellMental Orgy 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Consult your lawyer and doctor and nutritionist first.

[–]thoughtcriminal[S] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

This rule has been in existence for almost 4 years, largely unenforced.

If the rule wasn't enforced or documented for the last 4 years it effectively didn't exist. I'm not sure how you can in good faith call my post misinformed or in error based on an undocumented rule that was never enforced that apparently you already knew about.

It still is.

POD dragging isn't the standard anymore. The bottom tier is now outright banned.

We've already had Opie & Anthonie, Ice Poseidon 2, etc.

IP2 was forcibly removed due to Saidit's host iirc, not a specific rule violation.

So far as I know "leaders" and public figures are fair game.

Cool interpretation, I hope it's right. Would be nice if the rule explicitly clarified it.

IMO, you're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

I think there's a significant difference between allowing discourse at any tier of the POD and banning dragging down, versus just straight up banning any discourse in the bottom tier regardless of context. The former is an imperfect but effective way to control discourse. The latter bans an entire category of speech, a category which is allowed even on r*ddit, without taking context into account.

[–]JasonCarswellMental Orgy 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

If the rule wasn't enforced or documented for the last 4 years it effectively didn't exist.

There's copious evidence riddling SaidIt of examples of "rule breaking" for name-calling without it being explicitly written in the rules, as it has finally been added to the FAQ.

Further, there have been great conversations in the chat about the name-calling rules. Years ago the chats were more active. There was a long spell with nothing happening there, largely due to the shadow M7 cast over it. Only in the last half year has there been more chat activity again.

None of this is new.

I'm not sure how you can in good faith call my post misinformed or in error based on an undocumented rule that was never enforced that apparently you already knew about.

I have 2 strikes, for name-calling, 1 objectively, 1 allegedly. You can't explain these without understanding that it is, and always has been a thing here.

Look at these discussions and links within, including coverage of this topic:

/s/AskSaidIt/comments/8tvc/shalomeveryone_is_a_full_of_shit_enemy_of/

/s/AskSaidIt/comments/8euo/saidit_survey_ban_usocks_and_uactuallynot_or_keep/

POD dragging isn't the standard anymore. The bottom tier is now outright banned.

Advocating violence has always earned banishment as it's illegal, is very problematic for SaidIt, and violence is the slipperiest slope.

IP2 was forcibly removed due to Saidit's host iirc, not a specific rule violation.

Correct. They were and others are free to be low-tier within their subs.

So far as I know "leaders" and public figures are fair game.

Cool interpretation, I hope it's right. Would be nice if the rule explicitly clarified it.

We can ask.

/u/magnora7, /u/d3rr, /u/AXXA - What are your opinions on name-calling "leaders" and public figures as fair game?

I think there's a significant difference between allowing discourse at any tier of the POD and banning dragging down, versus just straight up banning any discourse in the bottom tier regardless of context. The former is an imperfect but effective way to control discourse. The latter bans an entire category of speech, a category which is allowed even on r*ddit, without taking context into account.

You may think there is, but the 3 admins, can tell you for sure if they like. You are free to hound them for answers if you like. Repeatedly comparing SaidIt to Reddit is certainly not the winning argument you may think it is.

[–]jet199Instigatrix 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Well if this is the case I know one puppet who should have been banned months ago.

[–]JasonCarswellMental Orgy 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Polkaroo&iar=images ?

[–]IkeConn 5 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 6 fun -  (3 children)

Booger.

[–]TiwakingMy Pronouns are Nigger and Boss Nigger 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

IkeConn 3 insightful - 2 fun - 40 minutes ago Booger.

Johnny Caravella: Yeah. I was making about a hundred grand a year out there. Then one day I said "booger," a bunch of bozos call the station, next thing I know I'm in Amarillo hosting a garden show.

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Fake news, no rules are changed. https://saidit.net/s/whatever/comments/8vz8/namecalling_is_now_against_saidit_rules/ww3q

[–]JasonCarswellMental Orgy 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Remove the "Fake news" bit and replace it with "Inaccurate" if you must or omit it like on your third repetition of this.

It undermines your admin /u/AXXA and/or /u/thoughtcriminal by implying they are intentional liars. They are not.

[–]tyranicaloverlord 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Dumb. I come from the old school days of the internet where we put on our big boy pants and ignored the people who trolled and name called. Even then, sometimes it was downright fun to throw insults back, regardless of how serious your want the conversation to be. If you get upset by words on you screen, you need to turn off the power and reevaluate your station in life.

The reality of the internet now is that Mods are weak and have egos as fragile as a police officer. They hold so dear to this idiotic idea of representing a fucking forum as something should be serious. It's not serious, this is the fucking internet, and forums are not a real place.

Mods hate free speech.

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Fake news, no rules are changed. https://saidit.net/s/whatever/comments/8vz8/namecalling_is_now_against_saidit_rules/ww3q

[–]JasonCarswellMental Orgy 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Remove the "Fake news" bit and replace it with "Inaccurate" if you must or omit it like on your third repetition of this.

It undermines your admin /u/AXXA and/or /u/thoughtcriminal by implying they are intentional liars. They are not.